Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement

Op 05.jul.2024 om 14:19 schreef olcott:

On 7/5/2024 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.jul.2024 om 22:18 schreef olcott:

On 7/4/2024 3:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:45 schreef olcott:

On 7/4/2024 2:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:

On 7/4/2024 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
I showed that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.

>
I proved otherwise, Liar.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

>
No, this trace supports my claim. When we look at this trace we see that

>
HHH is simulating itself simulating DDD until it sees
that DDD is calling HHH in recursive simulation such
that neither the simulated DDD nor the simulated HHH
can possibly stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD.

>
The 'unless HHH aborts ...' is irrelevant and misleading,

>
Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
A halt decider must PREDICT what its input would do.

>
Yes and when it must predict what a simulator that is programmed to abort would do, it should predict that the it will abort and halt. If it predicts something different, then it is incorrect.
If it aborts and ignore that last part of the input, it is incorrect.
>

 When a bear is running at you to kill you it is not
enough that you only predict that you will shoot the
bear. You must actually shoot the bear or you will be killed.

Exactly! Similarly, if a program is programmed to halt, the simulation of it should not only predict that it will halt, but the simulation must actually let it halt, as the simulated program is programmed to do. HHH fails at both. Its prediction is incorrect and its action is incorrect.
It is as if you predict that the bear will not kill and therefore you do not shoot. A wrong prediction and a wrong action can be fatal.
However, HHH simulating itself cannot possibly do that correctly, because it is programmed to abort prematurely, before its simulated self would abort and halt. So, both its prediction and its action are incorrect.

 

Professor Sipser recognized this as inherently correct.

>
But that did not apply, because its context was a *correct* simulation. His agreement does not include *incorrect* simulations.
Sipser would agree that HHH, when aborting a simulation of itself and missing the last part of the input is incorrect.
>

>
Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>
He is the #1 best selling author of textbooks on computation
theory. Ben did contact him to verify that he did say this.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D

>
Note the word 'correctly'. So, it does not apply to the simulation of HHH by itself, which cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>

     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
Ben also agreed that D correctly simulated by H DOES MEET THIS CRITERIA.
>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
 > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
 > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.
>
>
>
>

>